It's terrible that you, and apparently many like you, do not understand public records and government. I know your nominee liked deleting things, but
government emails are supposed to be retained and kept as part of the public record.

Maybe all the people bitching about government should learn how it works.

OK, I'll admit - I don't understand public records and government. Can you please source this so I can understand how/why my correspondence to a
government agency can be made public?

...and I'm still not certain what's so bad about all of this, according to some.

Voters having to prove they're eligible to vote? How dare they!!

The problem is, the admin wants to make the database of voter information public. In addition to address, the admin is asking for the last four digits
of voter social security numbers. With a name, birthday and last four SSN digits, you could steal almost anyone's ID.

I don't want the last four digits of my SSN on a public database. Do you?

In truth, the information the commission is using is freely available to anyone who wants to go ask for it. It is public domain. They are not tapping
into some super secret secure information, only stuff anyone could get, including you if you were so inclined. They are matching that information
against voter roles.

How do you think every major candidate in your area knows how to send you election propaganda every cycle even if you aren't registered to a party?

The Federal Register notice soliciting comments was published on July 5. The White House page was published on July 13.

Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5.

OH!!! OHHH!!!! OMFG! www.gpo.gov...
From the July 5th Federal Register...

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain information about the
Commission or to submit written
comments for the Commission’s
consideration, contact the Commission’s
Designated Federal Officer, Andrew
Kossack, via email at
ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov or
telephone at 202–456–3794. Please note
the Commission may post written
comments publicly, including names
and contact information, in accordance
with the provisions of FACA. There will
not be oral comments from the public at
this initial meeting.

SCOREBOARD
So we've established that WaPo just flat out lied about that little factoid. Do we really have any reason to continue this?

Haha, this is hilarious.

You do realize you just proved my point completely, right?

You post:

OH!!! OHHH!!!! OMFG! www.gpo.gov...
From the July 5th Federal Register...

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain information about the
Commission or to submit written
comments for the Commission’s
consideration, contact the Commission’s
Designated Federal Officer, Andrew
Kossack, via email at
ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov or
telephone at 202–456–3794. Please note
the Commission may post written
comments publicly, including names
and contact information, in accordance
with the provisions of FACA. There will
not be oral comments from the public at
this initial meeting.

While the whole time I'm saying..

Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5

There is no need for that other than tying a person's info deeper into the system then is need for their purpose. That's not going to be in the voter
roles. It is useful for identity theft should it get out there while tied to a name and address.

If there is any chance that some of the emails were sent in before the privacy disclaimer, they should err on the side of privacy, not just publish
everything.

That's what this is about. For some reason a lot of people don't seem to care about privacy as long as it's their guy taking it away.

Probably because privacy, when dealing with the federal government in any way or using the internet with anyone, is an illusion. It doesn't exist.
Hell, CNN threatened to doxx an amateur video editor because he hurt there widdle feels. It's the world in 2017, either own up to your opinions and
only type what you can deal with being attributed to you, or logoff and smash your computer or internet capable mobile device.

Confused - what exactly did they lie about? The fact that half the emails were dated before July 5th?

Read the post I was replying to. There's a belief that the privacy notice wasn't published until yesterday, when it was included in the initial
Federal Register document dated over a week prior. In other words, aside from those who jumped the gun and sent in UNSOLICITED emails to the wrong
address (at that time) for public voicing of grievances, anyone who sent their information to that email address had it in black and white in front of
them: "Hey, your name, email address, and maybe even address may be published with your comments for public viewing." You can't fix stupid, I guess,
and anyone who's salty over their emails being attributed to them over this is pretty stupid.

Confused - what exactly did they lie about? The fact that half the emails were dated before July 5th?

Read the post I was replying to. There's a belief that the privacy notice wasn't published until yesterday, when it was included in the initial
Federal Register document dated over a week prior. In other words, aside from those who jumped the gun and sent in UNSOLICITED emails to the wrong
address (at that time) for public voicing of grievances, anyone who sent their information to that email address had it in black and white in front of
them: "Hey, your name, email address, and maybe even address may be published with your comments for public viewing." You can't fix stupid, I guess,
and anyone who's salty over their emails being attributed to them over this is pretty stupid.

Yeah, yeah, I get that you think they're all stupid. But you posted this quote:

The Federal Register notice soliciting comments was published on July 5. The White House page was published on July 13.

Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5.

And said, with much bravado, that the washington post lied. And I'm trying to figure which statement is a lie.

Prior to July 5th, they were unsolicited. The activist plan backfired on them.

Why does it matter whether they were solicited or not?

Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government? It seems you're laughing because you see it as
"liberals" losing their privacy. This would be just as crappy to me if it happened to conservatives, because the issue isn't politics, it's privacy.
Which effects us all.

Whether they were unsolicited or not has zero to do with what happened here. Spin this all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

...and I'm still not certain what's so bad about all of this, according to some.

Voters having to prove they're eligible to vote? How dare they!!

The problem is, the admin wants to make the database of voter information public. In addition to address, the admin is asking for the last four digits
of voter social security numbers. With a name, birthday and last four SSN digits, you could steal almost anyone's ID.

I don't want the last four digits of my SSN on a public database. Do you?

In truth, the information the commission is using is freely available to anyone who wants to go ask for it. It is public domain. They are not tapping
into some super secret secure information, only stuff anyone could get, including you if you were so inclined. They are matching that information
against voter roles.

How do you think every major candidate in your area knows how to send you election propaganda every cycle even if you aren't registered to a party?

It's because they use that same information.

In my state, SSNs aren't publically available in the voter database. The fedgov will be marrying up SSNs with contact info in its public database. I
hope my state holds firm with not sending the info since I don't want the headaches.

They don't have the full social, but at the same time, how do you think so many illegals are cleared to work? They steal identities, including
socials. So that's the kind of discrepancy you look for - repeating numbers across different names in different states with a weirdly high rate of
usage.

They aren't not the full ones, but partials are. And it varies from state to state what is and isn't available, so your state may differ from others
in some particulars of what they will and won't consider public.

What the commission asked for was public information as much as they could have that could be used and cross-referenced against voter rolls to try to
verify any discrepancies that exist.

They don't have the full social, but at the same time, how do you think so many illegals are cleared to work? They steal identities, including
socials. So that's the kind of discrepancy you look for - repeating numbers across different names in different states with a weirdly high rate of
usage.

I didn't say full SS#. What could go wrong with this group and data. hint: government workers. I am not worried as much about it's use for this
purpose - more about how stuff gets screwed up so often. Data is valuable and crime know it.

Funny how transparency seem to be people to government and not the other direction.

originally posted by: redtic
Since, based on the comments here, this seems to be common practice by our government, I'm sure someone can point to other emails from the public that
have been made public? Anyone? No?

Let's just call it what it is - another dick move by the dick president.

Pretty much every Fed rule that goes through a public comment period. Is that enough?

I personally don't see the issue here. This isn't the government publishing private emails, these are public record by law.

Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government?

Nope.

Do you refuse to provide ID when applying for a drivers license? Do you try to register to vote without giving your name or address? Do you send in
your taxes without filling in your SSN or name?

Where did you get the idea that anyone has privacy when communicating with a public entity?

Now if you're dealing with an individual (or even a private company) and want to maintain privacy, that's one thing. It's no one's business who or
what you're doing... except, notably, the government! Your income must be reported, certain types of transactions must be reported, etc. You have an
expectation of privacy, and in that circumstance, even though you can't remain private from the government, the government has a duty to protect your
privacy. When you deal directly with the government, there is no expectation of privacy. When you are standing in public, there is no expectation of
privacy. If you want to remain completely private, you might want to find a nice deserted island that hasn't been claimed by any government, and never
speak to anyone else. Otherwise, your name and 'private' information will be made available to the public in some form.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.